Black Panther

Black Panther is predicted, and largely on track, to become one of the year's biggest films. It has been praised for breaking the Marvel formula, making strides in film representation and is largely loved by audiences and critics alike. With acclaimed director Ryan Coogler in tow, Marvel seem to have created a film that has really tapped into modern sensibilities and where we should be aiming to go with representation on screen. All this is very true ... yet, I found Black Panther to be ... ok. I'm sorry. 

Black Panther picks up soon after the events of Civil War. The African state of Wakanda is mourning the death of its king but are also celebrating the ascension of his son, T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), to the throne. Wakanda for centuries has maintained the illusion of being a poor country but in reality they hide a highly-advanced technologic city, housing both wealth and some of the most brilliant minds in the world. It remains hidden because the city was built on one of the most precious materials in the world - vibranium - and they hold it to be their responsibility to protect it. And in control of this nation is the Black Panther, a great power passed on from generation to generation. T'Challa and co. don't have long to celebrate before they go on a mission to hunt down Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis), an enemy of Wakanda. However, they soon discover that Klaue has a connection to an even bigger threat, one that could potentially destabilise Wakanda as a nation and bring its ideology crumbling to the ground - Erik Stevens, aka Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan). 

I think Black Panther's biggest problem is the first half. There's plenty of interesting elements, for sure and I'll get onto that, but it all ends up feeling somewhat clumsy. There are new characters that need to be introduced, world building to be done, plot strands to resolve from Captain America: Civil War and even further back from Avengers: Age of Ultron and a slightly underwritten hero at the centre trying to keep it all under control. I just think it's a case of trying to do a bit too much all in one go. Individually these elements are fine - Wakanda is well-establish, we understand the complex mythology of the nation, the loose plot strands from previous films are picked up and resolved and the new characters are good (which I'll get to). However, it's a lot of baggage to get out of the way, and some underwhelming action scenes, before getting to real crux of the film, which only appears after in the second half. 

I found T'Challa to be a bit of a stick in the mud in Civil War. I wished that Black Panther would go to show another side of this character, to make me care about him. After all, Black Widow kinda sucked in Iron Man 2 but Joss Wheadon made her into a compelling character in The Avengers. And certainly T'Challa reveals new stripes, for sure, but not enough to make me care for his character. Royalty are often difficult characters to write, mostly because most people aren't royalty thus are difficult to relate to. I was oddly reminded of The Lion King throughout this film. That film is one of the rare occasions where the plight of a prince is really relatable. Consider this. Both T'Challa and Simba are African princes and come from a line of proud kings but are faced with the burden of taking on their deceased father's legacy. A usurper to the throne appears that challenges the main character and both are forced to rise up from the ashes to take their true place. The difference? Simba blames himself for his dad's death. Relatable. T'Challa .... just kind of goes along with the narrative flow. We know he's a good guy and his actions never really come into question, outside of trying to come to terms with his father's morally questionable legacy. Outside of him learning to become a better king, I guess this just makes for a bit of a flat character arc. Is it a good performance from Chadwick Boseman? Definitely. But there's just no meat for the character. 

Chadwick Boseman turns in a good performance as T'Challa, aka the Black Panther, but it's not enough to get past a flat character arc

These issues aside, there is a lot I did like in Black Panther. As I said, I evened out at enjoying the film. In fact, I like T'Challa's cavalcade of sidekicks more than him! Leitita Wright is a complete delight as T'Challa's sister Shuri, a brilliant hyperactive teenage scientist. With brains to match even Tony Stark, Shuri just lights up every scene she is in. Martin Freeman is also good fun as returning CIA agent Everett K. Ross, an effective replacement for the Agent Cole character from The Avengers. Lupita Nyong'o is strong and determined as T'Challa's ex, returning to Wakanda after years adrift as a spy. And Danai Gurira is simply awesome as Okoye, T'Challa's bodyguard. In fact, I have to hand it to the film for another layer of representation - it's very rare you see this many women in roles that are usually filled by men in the action-adventure-superhero genre. Cudos, again. The world building, while a bit rushed, is also very good. While I wished we could have spent even more time exploring Wakanda, the mythology and history of the state are efficiently set up. The actual process of how the power of the Black Panther is imbued into someone is also fascinating. The user is brought to a spirit realm, beautifully rendered with a neon-infused aurora borealis lighting the night sky. Here, T'Challa encounters the spirit of his father (and see that Lion King comparison again...) and these are really lovely scenes. 

I have seen the future ... and it is Letitia Wright's Shuri, T'Challa's awesome brainy sister

Fortunately, the film really starts to even out when Michael B. Jordan's grand master plan begins to come together. Deciding that Wakanda can offer a lot to the world, and perhaps help underprivileged minority groups, he decides to destabilise the country, take the throne for himself and spread the wealth / weapons globally - in order to help minority groups to take up arms and destabilise the world order. This is when Black Panther gets genuinely interesting. And honestly, I think this could have easily been the whole film, as the concept behind Jordan's plan is really quite brilliant. Marvel was already breaking new ground with all African / African-American cast but the fact that this aspect is part of the meta-narrative is inspired. Identity for the African-American diaspora is touched upon in the film and Jordan's villain directly tackles with this concept. If you haven't guessed, he is easily my favourite aspect of the film. It's a great performance with a strong motive - rare indeed in a Marvel villain! The film then becomes T'Challa learning what it means to be a true leader and how to move forward. Ultimately, T'Challa has to accept that Wakanda is wrong to hold back its wealth and technology and that his father was not a perfect man. However, Killmonger's aggressive militaristic way of enforcing this is also clearly not the way. T'Challa is now burdened with this legacy and how to heal a growing political rift in his country. It's pretty engaging stuff and goes a long way to just about redeem Black Panther from a clumsy first half and a slightly underwritten main hero. I do love the final scene between these two characters, as some genuine pathos and levity is given in a genre that rarely makes time for this. 

Michael B. Jordan, easily the strongest part of the film, has an interesting motive and works as part of the film's central theme of exploring African / African-American identity and diaspora 

Black Panther is far from perfect. I've have heard plaudits say it's one of Marvel's strongest films, which I largely disagree with. I'd put it fairly middle of the road. Now, that said, the cultural impact this film is going to have cannot be understated. The fact that Marvel have put together a largely confident action-adventure film with an all African / African-American cast is a sight to behold. It's crazy that it's taken this long. Better yet, the whole idea of African identity playing such a central part to the film largely helps push Black Panther away from the more standard expected tropes of Marvel films. I just wish the central hero was more compelling. The first half is incredibly clunky before veering into some genuinely engaging material in the second half, which then descends into the usual big Marvel action finale (tough with the addition of some rare pathos). I actually could have done with more time to explore this world and its characters. Still, what Black Panther does right, it does really right. I came round to just about liking it mostly due to its great central idea, the compelling performance from Michael B. Jordan, efficient world building and a roster of wonderful supporting characters.

Look, I know everyone is loving this film at the moment and I do feel bad for coming down on it, especially considering the great things it is doing for representation and making that part of the meta-narrative. Good on Marvel. But for me, the pacing and script issues got in the way of my enjoyment. If that second half of the film had been the whole thing, I would no doubt put this as one of Marvel's best films.

My enjoyment of the film may have been hampered by the oddly very quiet sound mix at our local multiplex. Add to this a symphony of dozens of popcorn munchers plus chatting teens and I was having to work a bit harder to understand the dialogue. The magic of the cinema. I've recently purchased a 32" TV. I've hooked up my 5.1 speakers and it's like having a mini cinema. When the sound and potentially the picture is better in your own home than at the cinema, then you know there's a problem looming for the multiplexes...

The Shape of Water

The Shape of Water is something of a glorious homecoming for director / writer Guillermo del Toro. I've talked on this blog before how the chap seems to have no luck in getting his projects off the ground. And most will agree that, while they have their defenders (myself included), his last two films, Pacific Rim and Crimson Peak, are not top tier projects from this master filmmaker. Fortunately, del Toro has returned to form with The Shape of Water, an elegant and beautifully crafted fairy tale to match even the mighty Pan's Labyrinth.  

We open with Sally Hawkins' lonely Elisa in a drab apartment above a worn out cinema in downtown 1960s Baltimore. Life is fairly mundane for Elisa - she has an artist friend next door, Giles (Richard Hawkins), and enjoys a jovial relationship with a co-worker at a local science lab, both working as cleaners; this is the extent of her social interactions. And the issue she has - Elisa is a mute and in need of something to happen to in her life. Hawkins is just as magnificent as you'd expect. With no dialogue to convey her emotions, it's all down to facial expressions and body language. While subtitles are sometimes used to translate her signing, del Toro and Hawkins simply trust the audience to understand the point, feeling or emotion Elisa is trying to communicate. It's a highly convincing, subtle, tender and highly unconventional performance that provides a great anchor to the film. 

Sally Hawkins is brilliant as the mute Elisa - yes, even Oscar worthy

However, things begin to change for Elisa when a new specimen is brought to the lab. She soon learns that this thing is a humanoid fish-creature, discovered in South America and brought back to the lab for further tests. She begins to grow an odd affinity towards the creature as the two begin to form a bond that can only be described as love. Now as silly and bizarre as that sounds, The Shape of Water goes to painstaking lengths to sell this relationship. In fact, the lack of dialogue between the two leads just helps to communicate the sincerity of the relationship even more. The Asset himself (listed in the credits as such) is a masterpiece of creature design work. Drawing upon The Creature From The Black Lagoon as a starting point for the design, veteran del Toro actor Doug Jones (Herb Spaien in the underrated Hellboy films and the terrifying eyeball-on-hands monster in Pan's Labyrinth) imbues animal-like tendencies with genuine human emotions in a highly convincing performance. It's really hard not to care about the couple's plight. 

Elisa and Giles, along with co-worker Zelda (Octavia Spencer) and disgruntled scientist Dr. Robert Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg), hatch a scheme to rescue The Asset and release him back into the ocean. The only problem is that they have to circumnavigate Michael Shannon's terrifying Colonel Richard Strickland. Shannon is truly unleashed in this role, playing a warped inversion of the traditional nuclear father desperately trying to control his inner rage. He is sadistic and cruel but not entirely unrelatable (though certainly not redeemable). The Shape of Water is really all about lonely people and how they deal with that loneliness. Elisa is isolated due to her condition. Giles is a struggling artist, fired from his job and homosexual in a time when this was entirely unacceptable. The Asset has been kidnapped from his home, tortured and in a completely alien environment. Zelda works nights but still has to the perform the, inherently sexist duties of a "house wife". And Strickland works an intense job which means he has become estranged from his family life and, really, himself. The film is ultimately about making the choice to break away from this cycle of loneliness. Freeing The Asset is the ultimate accomplishment of this by making a genuine human connection. It's even more beautiful that it's through people who struggle to communicate on a conventional level. Interestingly, just as you think the film is reaching its peak, the story continues to unfold in unexpected and highly engaging avenues, exploring this theme perfectly. Every character is given an arc to follow and it all pays off beautifully. 

The Shape of Water takes a silly premise and turns it into an emotionally thrilling experience 

The Shape of Water is a master class in film art design. Del Toro has always been brilliant at visualising his worlds in extreme ways but he uses this boldness in more subtle ways with The Shape of Water. Every frame is simply oozing with gorgeous colours, perfect set-design and excellent lighting choices. There is a return to the fairy-tale like tenderness of Pan's Labyrinth. This certainly isn't the Baltimore of The Wire or John Waters. There's just this heightened sense of reality, with the colour green permeating nearly every frame, to give the impression of a dream like world. 

The Shape of Water is a film to get swept up in. Every aspect works phenomenally well together and it does genuinely makes you care about a women falling in love with a fish-man. Really. I don't think I've ever seen a film with such a strange premise get this much mainstream applause, accolades and acceptance. This is a testament to just how great The Shape of Water is and the brilliant spell del Toro has crafted. Highly recommended stuff.

Phantom Thread

I approached Phantom Thread with a sense of quiet optimism. The latest film from autuer Paul Thomas Anderson purpotes to be the final on-screen screen performance from actor Daniel Day-Lewis. The potential of these two reuniting is an enticing prospect. After all, their previous effort together led to one of the greatest films of all time, There Will Be Blood. There is also the sense of course correction on Anderson's part. After the criminally underrated The Master, Anderson dabbled in experimentation with Inherent Vice, a garbled and confused film that was visually uninteresting and a complete mess from a thematic and story-telling perspective. And it's become something of a punchline between myself and another film friend. So there's a lot stacked against Phantom Thread. Can it live up to be a worthy send off for Daniel Day-Lewis and can it re-align Anderson as one of the most brilliant filmmakers of his generation? 

Answer: yes, and more so.

Phantom Thread is absolutely brilliant cinema and a very early contender for my film of the year

I'll get the obvious out of the way - Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely spectacular as Reynolds Woodcock. When news first broke that the actor and Anderson would be reuniting, I had in my head a new character similar to Daniel Plainview, so powerful was Day-Lewis' performance in that film. The good news is that Woodcock is very different kind of powerful male in this film. He is ferocious but in a spoiled brat kind of way. He is softly spoken, precise in all of his actions, deeply misses his deceased mother and is kept under the watchful eye of business partner/sister Cyril (a brilliant turn from Lesley Manville who manages to subvert many expectations of this character type). Woodcock is a high-end dress maker, arguably one of the best there is, living in post-World War Two London. He and his sister are at the epicentre of the British fashion industry, designing clothes for royalty, rich socialites, and other wealthy people all complete with their own distinctive designs. The kind of cult that surrounds him though is akin Philip Seymour Hoffman's gaggle from The Master. Woodcock loves his work, a little bit too much. He has a hard time connecting with people and discards long term relationships like rubbish. 

Life for Woodcock completely changes though when he meets waitress Alma on one of his countryside retreats. The two share an instant bond as Woodcock whisks her away back to London to become his creative muse. However, Alma soon discovers that life with Woodcock is far from easy. Relative newcomer Vicky Krieps more than holds her own against Day-Lewis, giving Alma a sensitive intensity as she tries to to unravel the mystery of how Reynolds ticks. Krieps, like Manville, manages to take this stereotypical archetype to fascinating new places as her character begins to push out against the tight, constricted world of Woodcock. It does essentially morph into Alma's story and Anderson keeps on mounting the surprises with this character. Phantom Thread is ultimately about two toxic people leeching off each other and I think the optimism can be more read as more ironic. 

Daniel Day-Lewis gives a wonderfully bizarre and idiosyncratic performance that is reportedly his final film role before retirement

The way the narrative unfolds is genuinely fascinating. The film sets itself up to be a story of a male-dominated relationship with the naive female character in tow following his every command and trying to unpick him. However, it soon becomes apparent that Anderson is not interested in this tired, misogynistic narrative. Alma soon begins to gain her own form of control over the relationship as the film becomes much more about the shifting power dynamics in what becomes an unhealthy affinity for one another. This is where the film veers into some very odd territory that becomes truly telling about its characters. You'll never feel like breakfast quite the same way again.  

Honestly, the whole thing is quite brilliant. There's a delicate beauty to every scene, as intricate as one of Woodcock's latest fashion projects. The film retains this hypnotic dream-like haze as Anderson's camera glides across the very limited space of a 1950s London town house. Spending most of a film in a tight and confided space doesn't sound immediately appealing but Anderson finds new and exciting ways to beautifully shoot this location. Gothic in its use as part of the wider narrative, the house is just as important as the characters. Even when we venture outside Woodcock's home, there is just this twilight air to every location - the one shot New Year's Eve ball scene is a particular highlight. Every scene is meticulously mounted, lit and shot to maximum effect. 

Equally great is newcomer Vicky Krieps, who injects Alma with intelligence, grit and a hidden dark side 

Then there's the Jonny Greenwood soundtrack. It's just pure brilliance. Having seen the quiet master on stage as part of Radiohead, subtly manipulating background sounds and distortion, he's easily one of the most exciting composers working today. His continued collaboration with Anderson has produced some of the most challenging film scores of recent years; but I would argue that Phantom Thread has the best of the lot. Armed with a 60 piece orchestra, Greenwood produces eloquent and intricate compositions that play over most of the film, heightening the dream-like haze of the film. The score is just as lavish as the setting of the film. Seeing one of the most engrossing recent collaborations between director and composer blossom is a rare treat and Phantom Thread secures this relationship up there with Spielberg/Williams and Hitchcock/Herrmann. 

Despite having the trappings of a traditional British costume drama, Phantom Thread is much weirder, astute and grandiose than expected. With a spectacular (supposed final) performance from Daniel Day-Lewis and pheonomal filmmaking technique, Phantom Thread is essential cinema. Every element coalesces together so brilliantly. I haven't gasped this much in a film in a long time. Welcome back Mr. Anderson - I've missed you. 

Eliminating Hard 8 and Magnolia, which I haven't seen, here's my top Paul Thomas Anderson films

There Will Be Blood>The Master>Phantom Thread>Boogie Nights>Punch Drunk Love>Inherent Vice

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Director Martin McDonagh's filmography has a bit of a problem. Every film he makes stands in the shadow of In Bruges, quite possibly one of the best films of the 2000s. While those in the know will be familiar with McDonagh for his six plays that form two trilogies based in and around County Galway, Ireland (The Leenane Trilogy and The Aran Islands Trilogy, respectively), McDonagh really broke into mainstream consciousness with In Bruges, a genuine masterpiece of screenwriting and acting. His less assured follow-up, Seven Psychopaths, saw him break away from the Eurocentric, in particular Irish, world of his previous works. His latest film, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, which looks set to be his biggest commercial breakthrough yet, sees him move even further away with no Colin Farrell in tow this time. With an all-American cast, can McDonagh's sensibilities translate to somewhere as middle-U.S.A. as Missouri?

The good news is that, yes indeed they do. Keeping the same melancholic atmosphere of In Bruges, Three Billboards is a finely crafted, slow-burner drama that explores, in part, issues of anger, mortality, grief and vengeance. If that sounds a bit dry and austere, McDonagh laces the script with his trademark black comedy style, balanced by a brilliant cast of veteran actors. And just when you think the film is going to take the conventional route, the narrative completely shifts and begins to veer into some genuinely unexpected and morally grey material. 



Several months have passed since the rape murder of local Ebbing girl Angela Hayes with no culprit found. Her increasingly frustrated mother Mildred (France McDormand) makes a bold move by renting out three billboards and putting up a controversial message calling out the police, in particular chief-of-police / town hero William Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) (Who is dying of cancer), on the lack of action on the case. Things get even messier when Willoughby's second-in-command, Dixon (Sam Rockwell), gets involved - a pampered, racist mother's boy with a penchant for violence and lack of thought for the consequences of his actions. Soon, Mildred finds herself as the town pariah, largely loathed due to her own internalised anger and clear, unstoppable goal of getting the police into action - no matter the cost...

Three Billboards is a film that certainly doesn't shy away from the uglier side of grief. Frances Dormand is phenomenal in the lead role of Mildred. Every action she takes clearly pains the character but is overridden by her resolve for action. This just leaves a sharp, furious husk of a character. It soon becomes clear that all her actions have taken a clear toll on the person. McDonagh gives some of his best lines of dialogue and monologues to Mildred - the highlight being a particularly incendiary piece of dialogue towards the local priest. 

However, things start to get interesting when Hayes and police chief Willoughby begin to find some common ground together. A kind of odd understanding towards each other is formed. Harrellson is equally great in a tender performance that ultimately doesn't paint the police as the bad guys - just stuck in the same mess. That said, one character ironically becomes a better cop when he is stripped of his badge. Which brings me onto Sam Rockwell's character, Dixon. I have heard some controversy surrounding this character - a racist low-IQ cop we are ultimately meant to sympathise with but I would argue it runs a bit deeper than that and works as part of the wider thematic framework of the film. His actions throughout the film are shocking, down right unforgivable, but Rockwell plays the charactet as mis-guided, confused and enraged for reasons he can't quite work out. Both Dixon and Mildred find themselves on a similar path before converging together - moving past their uncontrollable resentment towards the injustices of the world. The character arc Dixon goes in the space of two hours is something to behold and a testament to Rockwell's abilities. 

McDonagh himself is a master of taking absurd acts of violence, cruel twists, genuine emotional sucker punches and contrasting comedy with tragedy. His camera lingers on the scenes, like voyeur letting the events in front of the audience play out. We are powerless to interfere with the on screen violence, thus making us complicit in the actions of the characters. The cartoony violence of the first half of the film gives way to something much more brutal and realistic as the film progresses. 

Of course, all this feels fairly timely. Anger is a huge part of the make up of our everyday lives. Heck, those who claim to be serving our best interests, in particular in America, seem to be giving in pure, unadulterated rage in the decision making of leading a country. Thus, I think Three Billboards can be described as a timely film examining how our negative emotions are directed at each other, rather than the system in place that continually lets us down. Perhaps Three Billboards is an early example of Trump-era cinema?

I do feel that some elements go a little bit too far, in particular in the comedy department (which, fortunately, make up a small part of the film). Some of it is a litter broader than the McDonagh of the past.  For example, I know Mildred's ex-husband's new girlfriend's intelligence is played a bit tongue in cheek but I feel these scenes and the comedy are a bit drawn out. On the other hand, some parts don't go far enough. A few of the side characters get a bit lost in the fray and randomly appear again in scenes when they are needed (e.g. Peter Dinklage's character). And arguably, the only misstep of casting is Willoughby's wife, who never quite gels into the larger frame of the film - where this is the fault of the actor, the script or the director, it's hard to say. Ultimately, the side characters, while briefly featured, are there to mostly serve the emotional arcs of the main characters. So, in the contact of the narrative, it's fine; it's a more sham to see some genuinely talented actors underused. 

Despite this, Three Billboards crafts a fine spell that manages to find new ways to surprise with its deft script, undercuttings of black comedy and some all-time great performances. Is it In Bruges levels of brilliance? Not quite but with it dealing in many of the same themes as that film it is more than a worthy successor. It's not exactly a drama for everyone but judging by the sold out screening at a weekday night screening (we tried seeing it our local cinema, The Savoy, last weekend but both the Saturday and Sunday screenings were completely sold out) it's clearly getting plenty of people into the cinema and thinking about the film. It's rich, wonderfully acted and has plenty to mull over on the journey home; perhaps for quite a while after that as well.

I did like how there was almost a mini-HBO alumni reunion going on in the film - Peter Dinklage from Game of Thrones, John Hawkes from Deadwood (my favourite TV show by-the-by) and Clarke Peters from The Wire (my second favourite TV show) (Peters will always be Lester Freamon...). It just shows how far the TV landscape has come in the past couple of decades where actors who made their names on TV are also making it in film (a rare occurrence before the advent of the Golden Age of TV).